RSS Feed Menu
Money troubles can ruin even the happiest relationships. No wonder that the conservative coalition is experiencing so much strain.
Conservatism could once be described as a three-cornered stool: social, economic and national security conservatives.
Today though it’s more relevant to think of conservatism as an attempt to draw a line connecting four points:
1) No tax increase
2) No defense cuts
3) No Medicare cuts
4) Rapid move to a balanced budget.
Obviously it’s impossible to meet all four of those commitments. It would be difficult enough to combine #4 with even two of the first three.
Much of the struggle within the conservative world can be understood as a quiet debate over which of those commitments to jettison.
The dominant group within CPAC for example would gladly jettison #2 and is less than enthusiastic about #3. When the Values Voters Summit convenes in October, you’ll see that its attendees are ready to jettison #4 and are less than 100% committed to #1.
Much of the 2012 GOP presidential nomination will attempt to send signals as to which commitments each candidate will sacrifice. Since so much of this signaling is non-verbal, it will be hard to pin down who truly is committed to which. But there’s a vibe. Tim Pawlenty for example seems less excited about #4 than Mitt Romney, never mind Mitch Daniels. Mike Huckabee’s voters will demand unwavering adherence to #3, which puts pressure on 1, 2 and 4.
And so on.
You can play this game at home too – and it may tell you a lot about the kind of conservative you really are.
In the spirit of full disclosure, here’s how I’d square the quadrangle.
I don’t think we should be moving rapidly to budget balance. The time for budget austerity begins when unemployment drops below 7%, not before.
I don’t think we can cut defense spending before we have successfully concluded commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. And generally I favor the Herb Stein approach to budgeting: First you decide how much it costs to maintain America’s global supremacy. Everything else comes after that.
I affirmatively want to see Medicare squeezed. The American health system is wasteful, wasteful, wasteful.
I am prepared to accept tax increases provided they fall on consumption and pollution rather than work, saving and investment. A carbon tax yes, a VAT if need be, but no increases in personal or corporate income taxes or capital gains taxes. On the other hand, the 15% tax rate on corporate dividends seems to me a laughably unjustifiable giveaway, even though I personally benefit from it.
You mean their “November Promises” are coming back to bite them in the a** ? Who would have guessed…
Until the GOP, Dems and the Wall Street Journal face the fact very hard choices have to be made, like REAL cuts in spending and some raising of taxes, we will only get posturing and a bigger deficit.
Meawhile, Speaker Boehner can show us his devotion to cost cutting by getting rid of the $400+ Million secondary jet engine supplier in his district… (Something the USAF has said they do not need)
A commentator over at Balloon-Juice made a reasonable point:
The same people who pushed the Iraq War on us are now pushing fiscal austerity. Can you name any austerity hawks in this country who were not big Iraq War supporters? The arguments are similar too. We needed to invade Iraq to ward off the looming danger of WMD and spread freedom; we need to cut our budgets to ward off the bond vigilantes and teach ourselves discipline.
This is not to say that some level of fiscal austerity isn’t called for – it’s just that the Iraq War supporters proved themselves totally fiscally irresponsible for the last decade, and should be removed from the discussion. There are plenty of very smart economists and politicians who didn’t think dropping a trillion or two in the Middle East was a good idea that we can rely on, even after we’ve pulled out those who have proven themselves too incompetent to be part of the discussion (eg, those who thought we could drop a trillion over there and NOT have severe economic ramifications, or those who thought Iraq’s occupation would pay for itself).
What’s the point here?
That money should have deterred us from acting at long last to liberate Iraq?
I can understand a case that doing nothing to liberate Iraq was somehow advantageous and preferable from a national security perspective.
But the money argument essentially concedes the national security issue, saying that yes, it was necessary to liberate Iraq because of its 12 long years of open and flagrant cease-fire violations, WMD non-cooperation, open involvement with and funding of terrorism, and acts of war such as firing on our aircraft and seeking to assassinate Bush Sr. – behavior that continued in the face of all diplomatic and economic pressure, even limited military action such as air strikes, and all as the sanctions began to crumble and renewed access to dual-use materials loomed — but it just cost too much money.
If it’s necessary for our national security, then we spend the money. If it’s not necessary, don’t do it. Either way, the money is not an issue.
Carney, one point would be: you don’t go to war without PAYING FOR IT. Sell war bonds or some such. Raise taxes, cut something somewhere. Another point is: no one cared/ cares about ‘liberating’ Iraq. They have hundreds of thousands of dead, destroyed infrastructure (which we get to repair), a lost decade. No one EVER argued they needed ‘liberating’ until the WMD story was not going over well enough and when reports were telling us there were no WMD. At which time a CIA agent was outed, which was found out and which necessitated a new tactic. ‘Liberation’.
“Carney, one point would be: you don’t go to war without PAYING FOR IT.”
Who said anything else? The question is, pay for it all now, immediately? We’ve never done that in any prior war. ALL wars are paid for with debt.
“Sell war bonds or some such.”
Gasp – go into debt? But the need to run deficit spending in war time has been a major excuse used by leftists for our giving up and running away, ceding the field to our enemies.
“Raise taxes, cut something somewhere.”
Oh, sure. Like “anti war” types would have been mollified if we’d levied a special war tax, or eliminated the useless educrat palace Dept of Education.
On liberation, you’re mindlessly repeating false propaganda that has been spoon-fed to you by enemies foreign and domestic. Liberating Iraq has been US policy from day one of the war, mentioned in the congressional resolution authorizing military force. And long beforehand; Bill Clinton signed a bill into law in 1998 with the same purpose at hand.
How about at least putting the war budget in the actual budget?
busboy33 said, “How about at least putting the war budget in the actual budget?”
And if we had, wouldn’t the “anti war” types be howling about how the war has served to fatten the Pentagon’s budget, and how war costs should be separated out so as to make clear what the “real” cost of the war is separate from what we would be spending on defense without the war?
“Who said anything else? The question is, pay for it all now, immediately? We’ve never done that in any prior war. ALL wars are paid for with debt.”
Bullshit. We raised taxes for WWI and WWII. We sold war bonds in WWII. It’s only with our great leader GWB that we had a war *AND* tax cuts, not tax increases.
The awfully obvious point here, although it appears to have escaped you, is that the same bunch of idiots who foisted the enormously costly and budget busting Iraq war on us are now attempting to foist an entirely spurious bag of austerity measures on us in the name of deficit reduction when they clearly have no interest in deficit reduction or they wouldn’ t have added 700 billion to it only two months ago by insisting on the continuation of huge tax cuts for the richest 2% of the country. Is this really impossible for you to grasp?
Oh I grasp your point just fine. I simply disagree with you. Can you grasp THAT?
Contrary to your opinion, opposing tax hikes on high earning achievers, and major investors and other economic actors, is not necessarily incongruent with wanting to reduce the deficit.
JFK and Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. At a time when lenders and investors are fleeing to gold or just sitting on their cash, piling on more taxes creates a disincentive to risk-taking entrepreneurial activity. If you want more lending, more hiring, more startups and expansions, more offices and factories opening, all in order to spur growth and the attendant revenue, punishing risk-taking with MORE taxes is counter-productive.
Our population in 1975 was a bit over 200 million. Our revenue and spending was at about $1 trillion. Since then our population is up 50%, our revenue is up about 100%, but our spending is up 200%.
Clearly, revenue is NOT the problem. Spending is. Awfully obvious.
Exactly!
I agree with most of what Frum says here.
Yes, the 1995-96 brutal beating of the GOP on Medicare dished out by Clinton and his MSM megaphones traumatized the GOP against touching Medicare again, even though the “slashing” involved was merely slowing down the rate of increase. But we HAVE to try again; adopting point 3, to the extent that it has been adopted, is deeply irresponsible.
Even more urgent than cutting back on Medicare now, though, is “bending the curve” for the future. Old folks hopelessly hooked on government now should just be left hooked; it’s too hard to wean them. But by all means slash away at future benefits for the baby boomers, before that tsunami really hits, and turn it into a defined contribution system. And means-test Social Security. If the idea is to prevent the terror of poverty in old age, then prevent poverty in old age, but no more endless payouts to the well-off to keep the program “universal” and untouchable. That’s insanely unsustainable.
Old folks terrified and/or outraged at the prospect need to be reminded ad nauseam that it’s not about them and won’t affect them but rather it’s about the boomers. And furthermore that sticking it to the boomers is the only way to ensure the government’s finances will remain strong enough to keep the gravy train rolling.
Also, much old-folk outrage can be diminished by aggressively targeting benefits for immigrants (NOT just illegal aliens). Legal immigrants pledge not to become a public charge, and have US-based sponsors who pledge to care for them if they become unable to care for themselves. This must be widely and ruthlessly enforced, with abrupt cutoffs, draconian bills presented to sponsors, and deportations as necessary. The more tearful horror stories on the evening news about vulnerable immigrants losing “critical” and “vital” services, the better. Old folks still watch the evening news, in droves. Failing to go all-out on this guarantees compare/contrast anecdotes of immigrants, legal or otherwise, feasting at the public trough while all American old folks who paid into the system all their lives get the shaft. Old folks vote. Their buy-in, or at least tamping down their unease and unrest, is indispensable to entitlement reform.
I disagree somewhat on tax policy. Although federal revenues have roughly leveled off with the slow economy in recent years, they are up sharply over the last few decades, especially when compared to population. Our population was a little over 200 million in 1975, and spending and revenue were at the $1 trillion level. Since then population is up only 50%, to around 300 million, but revenue has more than doubled to over $2 trillion, so the problem can’t be inadequate revenue. Instead, the problem is that spending is even higher, having more than tripled to over $3 trillion. If we brought revenue up to the $3 trillion mark, the party would just go on, and spending would skyrocket in 4 or 5 trillion. A trillion here, a trillion there.
To the extent that we need to raise revenue at all, shifting more of the tax burden to consumption rather than savings and investment is a good idea. However, we need to carefully think through the implications to the economy and to the government of giving the state a brand-new revenue stream to ease spending-cut pressure and to ratchet up and up.
Rather than pollution generally , I’d focus taxes on petroleum specifically, especially after enacting a mandate that all new cars be fully flex fueled. This makes oil taxes more than a brutal thumping on helpless motorists (OPEC already does enough of that), but rather creates an EFFECTIVE encouragement to alternative fuel. Without the flex fuel mandate, gas taxes merely punish movement and human activity, and do not promote purchasing of alt-fuel, because the cars can’t use it. Doesn’t matter how great, cheap, and clean a fuel is if your car can’t use it.
Carney, curious why you would measure your preferred level of revenue on a per capita basis. This method would seem to ignore both growth in the economy and inflation — without looking it up, it strikes me that those two figures are much more heavily tied into projected revenue than population is. Isn’t the measurement of revenue (and spending) as a % of GDP a much more telling figure?
The dollar figures I used were in inflation adjusted dollars anyway. Fair point on the economy.
“Old folks terrified and/or outraged at the prospect need to be reminded ad nauseam that it’s not about them and won’t affect them but rather it’s about the boomers. And furthermore that sticking it to the boomers is the only way to ensure the government’s finances will remain strong enough to keep the gravy train rolling.”
Great Republican slogan Carney…Stick it to the Boomers…sounds like a real election winner to me Carney. And of course the “old folks” will have not concerns that they are coming for them next! One of these days you’re going to develop some realism. When will that be?
I thought of making explicit that we wouldn’t actually say those words, figuring readers would get my meaning. Clearly, some need more hand holding than others.
You can make that point via ways like saying “retirees today who have paid into the system all their lives will see no change whatsoever – your benefits, cost of living adjustments, and so on remain untouched. But for those still in the workforce, we must for the fiscal survival of our nation ask to embrace a new system better aligned for the realities and needs of our world today, one in which benefits go to those who need them most.”
Of course all those idiots in the the tri-corner hats seem oblivious to the reality that their taxes have gone down since Obama took office.
Creating new entitlements causes unsustainable long term costs that will “require” (especially according to leftists like you) backbreaking tax hikes down the road.
Remember the 90′s when republicans were trying to cut medicare and democrats fighting back. A theory, I think that parties amble into their coalitions rather than choose them. When democrats supported gay rights and other socially liberal issues, they ambled into a younger coalition. Republicans ambled into an older one. Nominating a black man to be president probably accelerated the trend. As a result we have a culturally conservative, medicare party (resembling some recent welfare state politics in Europe) and we have a democratic party that wants to cut medicare in order to fund universal health care, a transfer from old to young.
That money should have deterred us from acting at long last to liberate Iraq?
It certainly should have been part of the discussion, if adding a trillion to the debt is something to take seriously.
But the money argument essentially concedes the national security issue
Well, you need to make the compelling argument why the following all constituted threats to our national security:
it was necessary to liberate Iraq because of its 12 long years of open and flagrant cease-fire violations, WMD non-cooperation, open involvement with and funding of terrorism, and acts of war such as firing on our aircraft and seeking to assassinate Bush Sr.
The cease fire violations/firing on our aircraft involved our protection of Southern Shiite populations and Northern Kurdish populations via policing a no-fly zone. WMD non-cooperation has been exposed to largely be a hoax. Their open involvement/funding of terrorism seems largely limited to payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Seeking to assassinate Bush Sr. was kind of Iraq’s Bay of Pigs.
Did any of those in retrospect, even in cumulative, represent a serious and immediate threat to America’s National Security? Not hardly. As such, yes, a cost-benefit analysis was warranted.
If you’re trying to portray yourself as a serious deficit hawk, that is.
While David Frum is at it in support of tax cuts, why not just confiscate all wealth over, say, $ 25 million. Bill Gates. Oprah Winfrey. The Rockefellers. Tiger Woods. Al Gore. Bill Clinton. Colin Powell. Wall Street fat cats. The Waltons. Gates likes to say money was easy for him and sweet Melinda to make but harder for them to dish out to charity. Why not put his $ 100 billion to deficit reduction?
Yeah, and kill anyone with glasses or with smooth hands, because they are class enemies.
The practical reality is that all 4 points will have to be substantially in play for this country to get its fiscal house in order. I agreewith Mr. Frum that unemployment must be under 7% before ther can be serious budget cuts. What conservatives have blithely ignored over the past two years is that when you are in an economic environnment where almost all of the jobs are being created in the public sector, you must be prudent about cutting the only enterprises, even if their public ones, which are keeping people employed. In a similar vein, Republicans generally now condemn the stimulus bill while forgetting that in early 2009 when it was passed, we were in the midst of an economic crisis, the credit markets had completely dried up such that the only area where stimulus could have an impact was in public sector spending.
More to the point, there really is no reason to be suprised at the minimal economic acumen displayed by the current Republilcan leadership. After all, these newly minted deficit hawks are the same guys and gals who told us in 2002 that the Iraq war wouldn’t cost more than $50 billion (that was Mich Daniels’ estimate). Hey they were only off by a factor of a THOUSAND.
GGRaider:
“What conservatives have blithely ignored over the past two years is that when you are in an economic environnment where almost all of the jobs are being created in the public sector, you must be prudent about cutting the only enterprises, even if their public ones, which are keeping people employed.”
Private sector added jobs in 2010, the public sector has been shedding jobs since 2009, particularly the State and Local public sector (Federal gov’t has grown).
Actually, these 4 points, as the basis for a policy where the function of government is defined to be only in the interests of the Super Rich seem very appropriate. And extremely successful in the massive transfer of wealth to the already rich and the stagnation in real wages that the rest of us are experiencing. We’ve been seeing the results of conservative pres./congress since 1980. And no surprise at the results.
“I affirmatively want to see Medicare squeezed. The American health system is wasteful, wasteful, wasteful.”
DF, yes the American health system is dreadfully wasteful, but less in the Medicare funding mechanism than anywhere else. Private brokerage of health care has overhead costs varying from 15-30% (this will be limited to 20% with the ACA). Medicare brokered privately provided health care has an overhead of 2-4%, by the far the most efficient health care financing mechanism. Conflating Medicare brokerage, which is very efficient, with the general wastefulness of the system is politically useful to an anti-government conservative, but factually wrong and a disservice to clear thinking about policy.
Carney: If it’s necessary for our national security, then we RAISE TAXES and spend the money. If it’s not necessary, don’t do it. Either way, the money is not an issue. Fixed.
And your numbers are meangingless. America has far more old people than it did in 1975 and most of the money is going towards entitlements towards old people, the fact that the tax structure was not set up to pay for what was coming is our burden, but they as sure as hell did not take that into account then (or they did, they just didn’t care, Bush raided the Social Security surpluses to fund his tax breaks…because somehow stealing from the future was our money)
We are also paying for 2 wars, in 1975 we were out of Vietnam so kind of a bogus year to match against.
I disagree with this: I am prepared to accept tax increases provided they fall on consumption
And what, pray tell, unless people have the money to buy things would they be consuming? A consumption tax discourages consumption and rewards saving, which lessens consumer demand, which lowers employment, which lessens more consumer demand, etc. This would turn America into Mexico of the 1800′s, a few very rich people and the rest poor.
“Bush raided the Social Security surpluses to fund his tax breaks…because somehow stealing from the future was our money”
Social Security income has always been immediately spent on benefits, with the surpluses blown on general expenditures. All the way back to the beginning.
“And what, pray tell, unless people have the money to buy things would they be consuming? A consumption tax discourages consumption and rewards saving, which lessens consumer demand, which lowers employment, which lessens more consumer demand, etc. This would turn America into Mexico of the 1800’s, a few very rich people and the rest poor.”
I see a virtuous circle instead. With more money going to savings and investment instead of consumption, the pileup of household debt begins to ease; the burden on taxpayers of individual retirement, education, and health care eases; more people join the investor class; everyone is a taxpayer with a direct stake in keeping government small; class envy is reduced as even the dullest can grasp that 10% of the price of a Ferrari is more than 10% of a Chevy Cruze; businesses have more capital to lend, hire, expand, and fund startups with, which increases employment and income, which in the end increases consumption.
It’s astounding that no one thinks unemployment is a problem.
Unemployment is not so much a problem as it is the price we are paying for the last 30 years of “Deficits Don’t Matter.”
Out of the last 30 years, there were Republican presidents in 20 of them. And in the 10 years of Democratic presidents, the Republicans controlled the House for 6 years.
They have brought this great nation to its knees.
And all their recriminations are just to avoid the blame.
Why not try something way outside the box and do like Trump says and tax the hell out of the robbers aka China and the rest of the SOB’s who have bested us in negotiations..
Trump thinks the tumor at the core of our financial ills is our policies of free trade and I agree.
So should you….
The largest transfer of wealth in history has gone from the American Middle Class into the pockets of despots like the Chinese thugocracy & multinational corporations.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson
HERE IS THE FREE TRAITORS CRIME
US to World Trade deficit 1987 – 2010
Negative 8.8 trillion dollars
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0015.html
DOLLAR DRAIN DEFINITION
The accepted dollar drain definition applies to economies throughout the world, not only those using the dollar as a unit of currency. Dollar drains are trade deficits that result when imports exceed exports in monetary terms. For instance, a country that imports more goods from overseas than it exports to foreign countries is, in effect, sending its currency overseas in return for those goods. This can lead to a shortage of currency in circulation at home, creating a tight money situation in which companies have difficulty obtaining the loans and funds they need to grow or to continue operations. Consumers feel the effects of dollar drains as well, since they cannot obtain loans for the purchase of property or for other immediate needs; a shortage of currency in the home economy affects every aspect of that economy.
MAJOR RISKS OF DOLLAR DRAINS
A ready supply of circulating money is necessary for economies to engage in setting monetary policies; loosening or tightening the supply of money in the market is one of the most important tools government has in determining fiscal policy. When there is a shortage of currency in the economy, the government cannot exercise this control over the economic situation. If the dollar drain continues for a significant length of time, the government may be forced to curtail foreign purchases or to borrow heavily from other countries in order to meet its obligations. This can lead to inflation and devaluation of the currency on the international FOREX market.
METHODS FOR ADDRESSING DOLLAR DRAIN
Governments experiencing dollar drains are left with limited options. They can attempt to control imports through tariffs or barriers to foreign trade; existing agreements may make this option impractical, however.
**Most analysts believe the long-term solution to dollar drain is to promote and encourage consumers to purchase goods manufactured in their own country where possible; this can stem the flow of currency out of the country and lessen the trade differential over time.**
How can we possibly do it?? USE THE LAW AND OUR CONSTITUTION
The Trade Act of 1974
The act delegated significant power to the president to invoke measures to protect American industries from increased imports from other nations, whether or not injury was being caused by unfair trade practices.
The act’s primary importance lies in Title II, Section 201, which gives the PRESIDENT the authority to take actions to protect U.S. businesses from injury caused by increased quantities of imports, even though the increase in imports violates no ban on unfair trade practices.
THE PRESIDENT CAN JUST DO IT
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE ACT
Article II of the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to vest authority to conduct foreign policy in the president, but Article 8, Section 1 gives Congress the power to lay and collect duties and the power to regulate foreign commerce. Therefore the power to regulate trade with other nations must be delegated by Congress to the president.
Section 301 expanded presidential authority to retaliate against trade practices by other nations that unfairly burden or restrict U.S. commerce, whether through high tariffs or through nontariff trade barriers. The president may suspend trade concessions, impose new higher tariff rates on a selective basis
Impact of the Act
Primarily because of Section 301, the Trade Act has been used more to open foreign markets to U.S. exports and investments than to protect American industries from unfair competition. Section 301 is a unilateral provision in U.S. law that can be invoked irrespective of any remedies available under the multilateral GATT or WTO……
We have paid for the world out of the pocketbook of our hard working American middle class, I say we take Trumps advice and get some payback and let the world start paying us!
We have generated 8.8 trillion dollars inside this country in the last 23 years. Imagine if that money were circulating here. How many more millionaires would we have?
This whole budget, debt, financial crisis can be summed up in two words….DOLLAR DRAIN
Oddly enough I’d agree with a fair amount DF says here about the timing of budget cuts and other matters. Cutting aggregate demand right now amounts to a higher form of insanity so its off the table in reality. And he’s right that the US healthcare system is enormously wasteful but the wastefulness occurs not at the access end but at the delivery and funding end. We’re spending 17% of GDP on healthcare while our peers are spending half that and providing universal access. I’d have said it was obvious to a 21 year old business major what is wrong with this picture. DF also obviously recognizes we’ve got to increase the revenue line but his solution is taxes on consumption that will squeeze the middle and working classes hardest. Then almost laughably he accepts that a low tax rate on capital gains that greatly favors the rich (they’re the folks who own capital) is a giveaway.
Frum is a very bright guy. It’s a pity he’s prisoner of a lot of Republican dogma. Bottom line, about 41% of the budget is social programs that are both necessary and loved and which no politicians are ever going to mess with in any substantive way . Then there’s the military that takes it to around 60%+ of spending so that we have a insurance company protected by a large standing army in Ezra Klein’s inimitable phrase. Add interest and another 10% or so to cover programs to protect the nations food, water, basic security etc etc and you’re left with about 20% genuine discretionary and even here the term discretionary is highly misleading. A budget has inputs and outputs. Because of the recession and tax cuts the inputs are at 60 year lows in GDP terms, ultimately there’s no alternative to increasing revenue. Some of this will come from the economy regaining it’s footing but the balance is going to have to come from tax increases. This is as certain as night follows day regardless who is in power. Forget the nihilist tendency in the GOP who think some big bang is going to blow away “big government” the GOP leadership is going to blink long before then not least because big business is going say “are you out of your mind.” So then it’s going to come down to the choices David proffers. Consumption taxes that are regressive or income taxes that are progressive.
I’m curious as to why we must maintain America’s “global supremacy”?
There’s nothing in the Constitution about global supremacy. Self-defense? Yes. Global supremacy? No. If the GOP really claims to be the party of the Constitution…. of constructionists…. then this global supremacy thing is bullshit.
I for one believe in a strong defense, but I see no reason for the U.S. to play policeman of the world. Let the rest of the world carry part of the burden. Let us keep our money here and work on being global leaders in the world of education, science and business.
ottovbvs
I’m not going to go with your fairy tale ending. The handsome prince choosing the progressive princess and leaving the the regressive one behind.
My bet is that we continue along the primrose path of least resistance. Until, of course, it ends abruptly in a crisis that everybody knew from the get go was going to happen.
I thought the last thing my little summary amounted to was a princess and the frog story. For the reasons I outlined the revenue line is going to have to be augmented (Frum essentially admits as much). This augmentation will be provoked by some crisis, probably declining bond prices and rising interest rates, and this will force president and congress to increase the tax take because of the intractablility of the budget. Then there will be a debate about VAT and higher income taxes but a national sales tax is not going to pass if for no other reason than it would take years to argue out and set up. When the Brits introduced VAT they were planning for it for three years. Thus the line of least resistance is a increase in income tax.
“Thus the line of least resistance is a increase in income tax.”
I’ll check with Senator DeMint and get back to you on that.
I think your ideas are solid and worth supporting but I’m not sure the Hatfields and McCoys, I mean the Democrats and Republicans will stop sniping long enough to accomplish anything.
Seriously, do you expect the Republicans to co-operate with the Muslim Birther Socialist during the run up to 2012?
A patient enters the emergency room with excessive bleeding. The R doctor says “we should stop the heart and the bleeding will stop” The D doctor says “I’m on break, call the janitor”.
It’s unemployment. The debt is high because of unemployment. The deficit is high because of unemployment. The lack of spending is due to unemployment. Everything else is noise until unemployment is reduced nothing will fix the economy.
And if the CEOs, who only think of themselves and the balance sheets of the next quarter for their corporations, say I’m not hiring until I see a tangible improvement of the economy, what then?
The signs during the tea party freak out didn’t say cut off my Medicare. They said get the government out of Medicare. Aside from being stupid on its face, it also shows why none of the birther patriot nuts are sending back their social security check in protest.
All they want is for the government to stop giving money to the darkies.
Tell the Airforce to stop preparing for aerial dogfights and embrace drones.
Tell the missile defense folks to junk everything except stand off boost phase warships.
Tell Exxon find your own damn oil and pay us a fair market value for the leases we give you.
Tell Kentucky we want our stimulus money back, all of it.
Do that and then get back to me about shutting down health clinics that keep $100 bad eating habits from becoming $1,000,000 strokes.
Interesting article and discussion.
Frum forgot the 5 point which is family/social values. It’s being hidden under Tea Party rhetoric, but abortion, anti-gay, guns, etc. are quietly dividing the party. As for defense – define Global Supremacy. Is it the fact that we spend more than the next 17 countries combined? That we have the capability to engage in 2 wars at the same time (we’re stretched ’cause we have been in two wars for almost 10 years).
I read Carney and I disagree with one post and agree with another. Iraq was contained (yes with problems) for about a billion dollars/year. We had no mandate to affirmatively engage in toppling a foreign gov’t. Sept. 11th & the lie of WMD gave the pretense to do so. If the Bush administration had gone to Congress and the American people to say “we’re going to liberate Iraq”, the war would have never started (and we would have saved a trillion dollars, 5,000 American lives and likely resolved Afghanistan and perhaps Osama Bin Laden quickly). And yes, we should have had a war tax to pay for it. I didn’t agree with the war but would have supported a war tax.
Having said that, I agree with Carney about Medicare & Social Security. If you’re 55+, you don’t have a lot of time to prepare for the future so I’d limit changes in those programs to those people (I’d still start making very small cuts today). If you are under 55, then some means testing and cost sharing makes sense – you’ve got 12 or more years to take charge of your financial situation.
I also disagree with Non-Contributor that the only and sole answer to our budget problem is lowering unemployment. We had budget deficits when unemployment was 5%, lowering unemployment won’t fix our deficit. I also do not think that spending more stimulus dollars will do anything other than short term drops in unemployment, not sustainable growth (even though I’m fine with both TARP and the stimulus package). Reducing unemployment is really important, it increases income tax reciepts and lowers the burden on social services – but it’s not the only thing. Unemployment will lessen as the economic structural issues get better (companies start to grow so they start hiring again, start buying equipment, inventory, etc that needs to be supplied by other companies so they start hiring again). We spent 5 years of over spending (housing bubble, lines of credit to finance personal consumption, etc.) it’s taking a couple of years to work through that.
My view of the solutions for the GOP (not they or anyone else will listen).
1. Adopt Erskine/Bowles (who’s remedies don’t start for 2 years).
2. Work with business to create new markets for American goods, services and ideas. This will generate employment here – not short term blip but long term fix (and it won’t happen overnight).
3. Be willing to accept some tax increases along with spending cuts. I reccommend modest tax increases on wealthy & middle class – what ever happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country?”
“If you are under 55, then some means testing and cost sharing makes sense – you’ve got 12 or more years to take charge of your financial situation.”
Well that’s where the theory breaks down because the vast majority of people are not going take charge of their financial situation as you put it. Americans are notoriously unthrifty and we currently have a situation where for 80% of retirees SS is over 50% of their income and for 50%of retirees it’s 100% of their income! So assuming they haven’t taken charge, what’s your solution for millions of indigent elderly? Workhouses? Live with your kids? Cardboard boxes under bridges? And this is without medicare where for a sixty five year old person to purchase a so so health plan would cost around $1500 a month. The reason SS came into existence was because millions of elderly Americans were living in penury. Do you know what the average balance is in 401k’s? Or how much you need to retire with in order to live at the rate around 80% of your pre retirement income? This is why the system except at the margin is not going to be changed and all reasonably informed politicians on both sides of the aisle (which probably excludes a lot of the GOP’s new recruits) know it.
If government weren’t confiscating 13% of our gross wages in the form of payroll taxes “for our own good” we’d have a lot more available to put toward our own retirement savings.
Are there some people claiming that no one could do better with that 13%? I don’t know anyone making that argument. I think the argument is that some people _will not_ do better, because they will (a) make bad investment decisions and/or (b) not invest at all. As a result, we’ll wind up with a high number of poverty stricken seniors with no income at all.
I think the argument from here is whether, as a social body, we are willing to allow that. If the answer is “no”, then you have SS. If the answer is “yes” then you don’t. The argument, in the end, is about paternalism towards the aggregate, not whether individual people with better sense could get better investment returns. If you don’t like paternalism in this sense, that’s fine (and those questions will be decided as a social body), but this is separate from better return issues.
Yes they’d immediately take that 13% and put it into purchasing a retirement health plan and increasing their 401k contributions and not go and spend it on a new beamer and Iphone. If you had an ounce of realism about human nature let alone public finance I might consider paying attention to your nostrums, as it is…
Otto – SS was designed to provide some support for the elderly, not pay their entire costs, so yes I would argue that personal responsibility comes into play and/or that children of the elderly also support them (as I do right now). I’m not advocating eliminating SS or Medicare (but I would start to make modest cuts now say 1-3% so if you are receiving $950 per month this year then next year it might be $940). I would also create some means testing and look to extend the eligibility age in the future (with a caveat for health – meaning if you can’t really work at 67 it shouldn’t be too difficult to access SS). Does that make it difficult? Yes but so is our debt problem.
It got mugged by a D-list actor ginning up stories about Welfare Queens and Strapping Bucks eating T-Bones as I recall.
Right, because there was no welfare fraud. Every recipient was truly deserving and honest as a Mormon judge. Public concern and outrage came from zero basis, comparable to everyone getting upset over the prospect of three headed yetis stealing their library cards.
Hey thanks for the Am Con 101! It’s very helpful. However, looking through the headlines and the proposed GOP legislation in South Dakota, I wonder if the 4 points you’re trying to connect, if those 4 points are even on the same page?
I generally agree with Frum’s points. But I don’t understand why defense isn’t on the table. We’ve just witnessed how effective soft power can be. Frum’s statement “First you decide how much it costs to maintain America’s global supremacy. Everything else comes after that.” is true. But aren’t there better ways to maintain global supremacy than redesigning jet engines?
This really shouldn’t be that hard. Call in the Joint Chiefs. Ask them what’s in their budget that they really don’t need or want. There’s a lot of military spending that is pork. It’s their to pay off a campaign contributor with a defense contract, but doesn’t really add to our defense capabilities.
But it’s disgusting to watch conservatives who dragged us into two wars with no plan for how to conduct the war (oh wait, we were greeted as liberators and now the oil revenues from Iraq are paying for everything, right?) complaining about the deficits. You should have thought of this in 2003.
Your post is incoherent.
Would you be truly mollified if conservatives who had backed the liberation of Iraq were today publicly exclaiming total unconcern for the deficit?
If not, your real problem is not the deficit, but the fact that Iraq was liberated, which is a separate argument.
I’m not sure if “mollified” is the right response, but perhaps “willing to call modern conservativism a set of consistent principled concerns” might do.
ottovbvs // Feb 15, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Very well articulated and cogent. There others who had equally intelligent things to add, but yours stood out in my view.
Your post again makes the case for this forum as the place where one can gain insight and have intelligent discussions. If only there were more than one oasis in the desert, perhaps intelligence and honestly would become a groundswell.
Thanks, I try. I do literally read carefully the contributions from people I don’t agree with (well the reasonably sane ones) but all too many of them are based on prejudice and cockamamie ideas that obviousy don’t bear the least resemblance to their own circumstances or how people behave in the real world. Which of them doesn’t have aging parents who aren’t multimillionaires? In fact the issues with SS and Medicare/Medicaid are totally different. SS is fairly easy to fix with a few tweaks at the margin like raising the retirement age to 67 and rasing the cap on contributions because it’s all very easy to predict actuarily and technical insolvency is a long way off. The problems with M/M are all to do with the cost of providing medical care and estimating the level of demand for that care. If the cost of providing medical care in this country was the same as it is in Japan which has universal access and an ageing population then the M/M budgets wouldn’t be a problem. And yet the Republicans consistently resist attempts to bring those costs down whether its defending costly advantage plans (I have one) or negotiating price breaks with the drug companies. You don’t need a PhD to figure all this out but it seems to be beyond a lot of people who believe they have something to say on matters of public finance.
How ironic, Ezra Klein has a piece up covering exactly the same ground as me on Medicare/Medicare:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/the_problem_is_not_medicareand.html
What Frum need to realize when he talks about squeezing healthcare he’s not talking about the access provided by Medicare/Medicaid it’s the cost of the product itself that is the problem.
Republican budget - Page 3 - MotownSports.com Message Board // Feb 16, 2011 at 10:59 am
[...] [...]
Haven’t read the past 50 comments, but anyone bring up the fact that it was the REPUBLICANS who voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices?? The one amendment in the past decade that would have actually allowed the government to spend less on health care, and the Republicans blocked it. Second thoughts on that one David?
I’m a flat taxer. I believe if you make a buck you owe a piece of it to the nation for providing this fine country in which you made that dollar. Also, I believe that it is irrelevant whether you made that dollar from sweat equity or capital gains – income is income.
Having said that, Warren Buffet has said in public that he does not need nor want a tax cut. Ok, so he is an extreme case. However, there is point at which the very wealthy do not need, nor care about the taxes they are paying. They have more than they can spend or want to spend. That’s why folks like Gates and Buffet are giving away their billions. Now isn’t it silly to give them a tax cut?
If you apply the silliness metric, the nation could find a point at which the tax rate is commensurate with the income. That might be $1M or $3M or $5M. But to give them tax cuts given the nation’s current state is silly.
Again, the intellectual dishonesty on the part of the GOP is only exceeded by the extreme leadership they continue to follow. Where are all the adults in the GOP?
@midcon
The problem with a flat tax is that it can punish the lower-income folks more than that money is worth. Take a flat tax of, say, 10%. You have someone who earns $10,000 a year and someone who earns $100,000. That $1,000 means a lot more to the first person and his quality of life than the $10,000 means to the second. While I don’t think that we should go crazy on taxes on the wealthy (back to Reagan or Clinton levels would be fine with me), I think that we should also be realistic about what certain segments of the population are able to contribute. Just my two cents.
One answer I read about years ago was to simply allow income up to a certain level to not be taxed. I believe it was Steve Forbes, but I could be wrong on that one.
Essentially, the first $50000 of income is not taxed. It doesn’t matter how much is earned, that first $50k is not taxed.
The guy making only $10k does not pay taxes.
The guy making $55k pays taxes on only $5k of his income.
The guy making $1M pays taxes on $950k of his income.
The poor aren’t punished at all.
The problem with this is that the devil is in the details as ever. I’ve heard the arguments over the years and the flat tax always falls because of it’s highly regressive nature. All attempts to deal with this, result in the introduction of masses of new caveats (all of which will become corrupted over time) and/or the creation of alternative equally regressive taxes on consumption which is what Frum is suggesting. Without getting into the detailed maths the problem is that the huge amount of revenue that has to be raised to fund govt means that with any flat tax the bar is going to have to be set fairly high like in the mid 20′s on everyone’s income. Remember the current effective rate of collections is around 20% and we’re not raising enough…the effective rate needs to be in the mid 20′s to cover expenditures. Now a lot of flat taxers say ah yes but the answer is a mix of a flat tax say in the low teens with maybe a bit of progression at the bottom but to make up the difference with a national sales tax like VAT. Again to make up the difference assuming the tax excluded some basic items like food, you’re going to have to set the bar in the mid teens. The British are currently paying 20% VAT(it started at 15%). Now any national sales tax is going to be on top of existing state consumption taxes which are generally in the 5-10% range. What do you think the impact would be of enormously regressive 20% plus consumption taxes on demand? When you get right down to it the subtext of any shift to a flat tax system is a substantial shifting of the tax burden to the middle and working classes. It’s next to impossible to make it broadly neutral. Which of course is why multimillionaire Steve Forbes loves it. The arguments for the flat tax are of the largely abstract “It’s going to release the entrepreneurial energies of the American people” variety. I’m afraid for economic and political reasons it’s a non starter.
Yes, this is an unusually coherent conversation for a comments forum. Thanks.
My two cents: my problem with Republican conventional wisdom on entitlement reform is that if SS were privatized and Paul Ryan’s plan were implemented for Medicare, we all know what would happen if these programs became inadequate for beneficiaries. The government would come in with a TARP-like program and guarantee benefits.
Say whatever funds SS were invested in gave a poor return as a result of a market crash or downturn, and those recipients on the verge of retirement were looking at receiving less than they put in. We all know that the government would come in and make up the difference, essentially making it a defined benefits plan (as it is now). I even think the Bush plan had some kind of mechanism to do this, which makes the whole concept (including the Medicare voucher program Ryan is pushing) look like a giant transfer of wealth to the private sector. Which IMHO is the point.
Wage policy is the element missing from these discussions. Currently it’s possible for a person to work full time plus overtime and still not have enough money to save for retirement and pay for health insurance and in some instances require food stamps. This person will always depend on the government for subsidy unless there’s a wage policy that makes sure full time employment can actually support a person and their family. These subsidies which are paid to the lowest wage earners mostly allow wealthy individuals to pay less than the true cost for the services rendered. None of the entitlement programs work properly if wages do not cover the cost of living.
Incomes policies per se don’t really work. They’ve been tried extensively in Europe in the sixties and seventies and always failed. What you’re really getting at I think and it’s an entirely valid point is the decline in real purchasing power of 80-90% of the country which has been going on apart from a brief interruption in the 90′s for thirty years. At bottom this is why all these market based solutions the Republicans keep advancing won’t work. Guess what. Most people can’t afford them and/or don’t have the expertise to manage them. The median income in this country is $55,000 when if it had continued its trajectory and received its pre 80′s share of productivity increases it would probably be in the 80′s. This income stagnation is not all the fault of Republicans, much of it is simply shifts in the labor market, but they haven’t exactly tried to ameliorate it. And that’s what were basically having to do…ameliorate it. That’s the flaw at the center of the whole supply side worldview. We’ve created an increasingly service based, high tech economy which depends for 70% of its GDP on consumer spending. How the heck are you going to continue growing such an economy while progressively impoverishing 80-90% of the people? Henry Ford had this figured out when he gave his workers high pay so they could buy his cars. The cracks were papered over with debt for about 8 years and the result was disastrous. The bottom line is we have to have some…duh…duh…dud…income redistribution…arghhh. This doesn’t necessarily have to mean higher wages but it could be cash transfers in kind like cheaper healthcare and transportation etc etc. I’m not sure whether its politicians being unable to explain it or the American people being too obtuse to take it in.
This is a bit off-topic, but could any here explain how cutting government spending creates jobs? I keep hearing this, and I really don’t understand the concept. I hear explanations like, “Government spending crowds out private investment.” Specific examples of this actually occurring would be great.
There is no logic to it. Government spends money and the private sector benefits.
If the government spends too much money there is inflation, if the government does not spend enough there is high unemployment.
That is it in a sentence.
I’m 53. My dad retired in 1991. I’ve already paid into Medicare longer than he did.
In addition, we had a deal in 1983: all of us working then would pay more, much more, than SS actually required, and that way when it came time for us — people my age plus or minus a few years — to retire the money would be there. This is still essentially sound, although if you tweaked the income cap a little, it would be much better. And if you do the math, it’s immediately evident that people who have worked from 1983 to now have a lot more to do with the “surplus” — for our own retirement, after all — than people who retired in, say, 1991.
What went wrong, though, is that the extra money we were paying in got spent first on the non-existent Soviet threat (and there was no Soviet threat to US or NATO after 1983, none) and then on tax cuts and an optional war in the Middle East.
I didn’t support any of those things. My dad supported all of them. Excuse me if I’m not all that interested in having my benefits reduced, while his stay where they are.
I recognize that we’re all in the soup together. Entitlement reform has to recognize this as well (with, obviously, the poverty level as the lower bound).
Balloon Juice » I do not think that word means what you think it means. // Feb 16, 2011 at 2:34 pm
[...] conservatism used to be about balancing the budget and running a tight ship. Now it’s about keeping taxes low no matter what. But this is well-trod ground. What’s bothered me lately is that I just don’t really [...]
charleycarp,
Speaking only of Social Security – your money is still there. It has not been spent. It is invested in government securities that pay interest. Many folks think that SS funds have been spent on other things. They have not. Nor by law can they be. We have a surplus of money in SS until 2039. At some point we need to make adjustments such as increasing the retirement age, decreasing benefits, or increasing SS contributions or some combination of all three. However, those are incremental changes that need to made. We are not in a crisis mode and you money is still there. If anyone tells you something different, there are misinformed.
ottovbvs
Still arranging the tax chairs, I mean deck chairs, on the Titanic. There will be no meaningful economic solution to America’s financial problems until there is meaningful political cooperation and the latter is far more difficult than the former.
It reminds me of the story of the six blind rabbis in Poland. Each was to examine an elephant and report back to the rest what he thought an elephant was. The first rabbi was given the elephant’s leg to examine. He reported that an elephant was like a tree. Shortly before the second rabbi was to examine the elephant, his assistant came rushing in to tell him that they all had to go to Minsk immediately. It seems that the elephant was on a rampage and had almost destroyed their entire village.
I don’t have to tell you the other elephant on a rampage of hate and no and the destruction it has already caused. This is the real problem America faces. Unemployment and deficits are easily cured compared to the self-righteous behavior of an out of control political party.
Great story I’ve added it to my mental collection of parables with a meaning.
nickthap-
Short answer – When the government spends more than it brings in, it must borrow by issuing bonds. The interest rate at which it borrows is set by the market. In situations where investors don’t want to invest in government bonds, presumably because they see better opportunities elsewhere, the interest on the bonds must go up in order to attract investors.
Therefore, in situations where interest on long term government bonds is high, it is more expensive to borrow. Also, in this situation, in theory government spending is “crowding out” private investment, as evidenced by the high interest rates. So, in theory, decreasing government spending creates jobs in this situation.
However, right now, for a variety of reasons* interest on government bonds is historically low. Therefore textbook economics would suggest that we don’t need to get our balance sheet in order in the short term, and the people who say that we do aren’t making short term job growth a priority.
That’s my understanding anyway.
*Some likely reasons would be, in no particular order, federal reserve monetary policy and QE programs, a desire by many investors around the world seeking “safe” investments in these turbulent times, the fact that we are in a balance sheet recessions and consumers are choosing to pay down debts rather than spend and therefore companies can’t/won’t expand because there are no customers, etc.
“However, right now, for a variety of reasons* interest on government bonds is historically low. Therefore textbook economics would suggest that we don’t need to get our balance sheet in order in the short term, and the people who say that we do aren’t making short term job growth a priority.”
Absolutely correct Steven as is the list of likely reasons for the current close to historic lows in bond yields. While the crowding out theory isn’t totally without substance it is very much a theory and highly dependant on lots of other variables…but you obviously know this. What is certain, however, is that the way it is deployed by a lot of Republican know nothings is largely bs. Private investors, notably corporations, are sitting on mountains of capital with nothing to spend it on because either demand is depressed or they have adequate existing capacity.
The problem with the flat tax is that once you eliminate the home mortgage deduction and the credits for dependent children, you are raising taxes on the middle income people. I’m single, rent, and have no kids. It would probably mean a tax cut for me. For most Americans it would not. Once people figure that out, they are against it.
As for spending cuts, everything has to be on the table. Everything. If you aren’t willing to take some cuts in your favorite programs then you aren’t serious about reducing the deficit.
nickthap, to further elaborate:
Imagine the government refused to collect enough taxes and refused to cut medicare or defense, so we had a huge budget deficit. Therefore make up the difference we have to issue bonds.
Also imagine that because of inflation concerns, the Fed doesn’t “print money”. And China no longer has a major trade surplus that they want to use to buy treasuries. And the economy in general is doing ok.
In this situation, interest rates would be pretty high. Hypothetically, let’s say 8%, but it could be higher. As such, there is little incentive for an investor or venture capitalist to invest in a new business unless that business is likely to earn a return higher than the worlds safest investment – U.S. treasury bonds. So basically in this situation no investments in private business will take place unless the expected return, factoring in risk, is greater than 8%
So compare that situation to now when interest rates on 7 year bonds are about 3% or so, 30 year are 4.6%. In today’s investing environment, no investments will take place unless the expected return is greater than 3%-4. So theoretically, when interest rates are low, it is a lot more likely for a private business to obtain investment funds, because the minimum ROI needed is less. And vice versa.
ottovbvs,
What I got from your post was a caveat, then a bunch of assumptions based on that caveat showing how it wouldn’t work.
The simplest solution is, of course, no exceptions. Every single cent of income generated is taxed. (Except the first $50k, or whatever).
No other exceptions allowed means no corruption of those caveats. Yes, that means capital gains get taxed. Money gained is taxed. Period.
The real issue I see with the flat tax is keeping politicians away from it. We all know how politicians love to modify things. Usually based on whomever is giving them the most campaign contributions, rather than based on any sense of what might really move our society forward. It’s really too late to adopt something like this for our corrupted process.
The same goes for dropping income tax and moving to a national sales tax.
My initial comment was merely pointing out how a flat tax could be structured so it didn’t hurt the poor (the example was a $10k income). I know it’s a pipe dream that will never come to pass in the U.S.A.
(Except the first $50k, or whatever).
You’re ignoring the fact that in order to raise the required revenue the bar has to be set in the mid 20′s and encompass most people to recover the revenue that’s been lost by all those people currently paying an effective rate of around 30% who are disproportionate countributors to the tax take. That “whatever” is going to have to be taxed and since the median income in this country is about 55k that means that the lowest paid half the country would would be paying around 25% tax on all or most of their earnings. I’m not trying to be clever just trying to explain the flaws in the concept.
Removed.
@nickthap
“This is a bit off-topic, but could any here explain how cutting government spending creates jobs? I keep hearing this, and I really don’t understand the concept. I hear explanations like, “Government spending crowds out private investment.” Specific examples of this actually occurring would be great.”
No one will be able to explain to you how cutting government spending (reducing the deficit) creates jobs because it doesn’t.
Many of us felt reducing the deficit would inspire confidence in our ability to get a handle on the the economic problems besetting America. Both at home and abroad, leaders of the business world would see our resolve. The confidence that this would engender would cause the the “worried well” to loosen their purse strings and continue to consume at same the level they had been. Corporate leaders would be effected by this confidence and would increase capital investments and improvements and perhaps begin hiring earlier than they are are now. Foreign investment would flow into America without interruption.
Well, silly us.
The Republican contempt for America’s chief administrator remains unabated. Expect more filibusters in the Senate; with unknown holds on Obamas appointments only recently done away with. Expect Rep. Issa’s investigations and revelations to go forward as if the economy wasn’t on the critical list.
Those of us who argued over the past months that cutting the deficit ranked most important of all the actions, only now see that the brief, shining moment known as budget restraint and deficit reduction is as lost in legend as, let’s say, Camelot.
“No one will be able to explain to you how cutting government spending (reducing the deficit) creates jobs because it doesn’t.”
But it will release “The dynamic entrepreneurial energies of the American people.” What else do you need to know?
“The dynamic entrepreneurial energies of the American people.”
This is also called “The good, old days.” How do we release the good old days?
First, we must destroy Voldemort.
First let me say that I was once a card carrying Republican. The views of the Tea Party are largely way too extreme. Living in a complex with Defense contractors and Defense Dept. people, there is waste and some fraud – it does need to be trimmed. Being medically trained and working in that area, there is waste and fraud in my area as well — needs to be trimmed. This does not mean cutting care for the elderly and poor. Some tax increases are needed to fix roads and maintain public services – people want them – they have to pay for them. Without roads and public services – there will be riots in the streets. There is no free lunch. Rapid reduction in the national debt is not going to happen. When the Republicans move to what I consider the “Center” I will rejoin.